home

'New South' or 'New U.S.'?

By TChris, Section Social Justice
Posted on Wed Sep 14, 2005 at 10:42:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Douglas Dowd asks whether this description of the "New South," written in 1940, applies to the nation as a whole today:

Violence, intolerance, aversion and suspicion toward new ideas, an incapacity for analysis, an inclination to act from feeling rather than from thought, an exaggerated individualism and a too narrow concept of social responsibiity, attachment to fictions and false values..., too great an attachment to racial values and a tendency to justify cruelty and injustice in the name of those values, sentimentality and a lack of realism... .

Dowd's answer, informed by history and current events, is here.

< Coming to a Border Near You | Inmates Become First Responders in Louisiana >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    'New South' or 'New U.S.'? | 23 comments (23 topical)
    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    leftists usually find such dark portents when they realize that most of the people in the country don't agree with them. they pawn that off as evil without giving a thought to the possibility that they are the ignorant, not those who disagree with them. it's part of the elitist mindset central to their worldview. they make race their centerpiece-then, if others disagree, they must be racist. you find it in all areas of thought on the left.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Linkmeister on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    That's a fascinating article; I'd never have heard of it without your posting the link.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Charley, Did you read Dowd's piece? Your comment has nothing to do with the heavily footnoted and researched history it illuminates. Or do you believe stuff like social crises just fall out of the sky, just happen, with no warning (like hurricanes of old), with no history to clue us in to their coming? As a white guy with blood relatives who are African-American, and having lived on welfare in the inner-city myself as a young kid, please don't spew back that empty, generalized b.s. from your first post. Notice also, I'm dealing with you directly, not making some inference about ALL right-wingers and ranting ignorantly. And I'm not accusing you of any racism, only of having an opinion I happen to find uninformed and, related to this specific thread, completely disregarding Dowd's quite insightful arguments. I recommend a book also on the same line, called "The Politics of Whiteness" by Michelle Brattain.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    sure I read it-it sounds deep to one indoctrinated in the claptrap of the modern left. if you disagree with his progressive views, you are ignorant, evil or both(most americans are). it's not that tough a piece to read. Ward Churchill could have written it-it would still be **ap.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Charley, Ward Churchill, perfect. Alright, I'll give it one more shot: So...poor whites acted against their interests for so many decades because? And this history has nothing to do with today because? Just because? I'm curious, bud. I seriously doubt Dowd would call you a racist. I think, like me, he'd actually try to understand just what you're arguing FOR?

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    et al:
    Now our nation as a whole is well on its way to having a functional resemblance to that South; or worse.
    That “south” existed, if it ever did, 65 years ago. And, of course, the author doesn’t provide examples, just a list of “sins” that he spews out to condemn a region, and finally, a country.
    3) a dangerously fragile U.S. economy, whose once matchless but now weakening manufacturing sector (measured by millions of lost good jobs)
    This demonstrates the shallowness of the author. On one hand he condemns the US over loosing manufacturing jobs, but fails to note that these jobs have went to other countries who can do them at a lower cost. What would he do? Condemn these nations to colony like status, always to send us the raw material, and always buy our manufactured products? Does he think today's world will tolerate such?
    4) a set of rising and combined economic and political challenges to U.S.-guided globalization, whether in the already substantial and growing dissent from Latin America, the spreading weakness of European economies, and the spectacular rise in the strengths of both China and India;
    Again we see the shallowness of his thoughts. He decries the weakness of Europe without mentioning their huge tax burden and socialism guided economies and praises India and China without noting that neither have strong unions. Somewhere between the two lies the US. Perhaps the middle ground is better. But finally, as his bitter song winds down, we see him raise the flag of “fascism, and, of course, Germany. Perhaps before I die I will understand why the Left cannot make a complaint without first finding the corpse of Hitler and telling us ever more darkly that we must do as we are told else the old bogey man will stalk and kill us. It is nonsense such as this article that is why I left the Democrats in the late 60’s. I have no need for a return ticket until they are willing to dismiss such inaccurate writings for what they are.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#7)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    As someone who has lived in the South all my life I am well aware that 1)the old South to which Dowd refers definitely existed (duh) and 2)It is very much alive today (double duh). Anyway..... The short definition of fascism is what happens when the dominant economic interests (today, that would be corporations) become the government. Which is basically what we have today. As Bill Maher noted Friday, American fascism doesn't wear a brown shirt. It dons a smiley face.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Posts that begin "leftists usually find..." yadda yadda have nothing to add to the discussion except reheated, and pompouse, liberal bashing. I read the article. I knew the facts already but I didn't understand the point of the article. That "the South" qua region has its myriad of problems, including ingrained racism; that "the South's" problems are increasingly becoming the nation's as a whole are not exactly new ideas. Yes, of course. And? Glanton is absolutely right. We are staring at the early stages of American fascism - some would argue that it is more than early, but I won't go that far. [Cue right wingnuts to initiate discussion on why fascism really wasn't that bad, after all.] Maher's remark is funny,cute and sassy, but it could only be made by a rich white boy. It's kind of hard to see smiley faces on the faces of authority in black neighborhoods. There, they are the same as they've always been. Unsmiling and white.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    I don't know where to begin other than to say that the responses from Charley and PPGoon just don't measure up. I really tried to see things from the local crumudgeon PPJerks point of view, I really did. It's just that his points are: 1) as if he was reading a completely different article and 2)completely rooted in a distinct anti-intellectualism. I just find it hard to believe that the folks on the "right" are still trying to use that tired old "elitist" meme. Hey Chuck, you can come and hang out with me and my "elitist" buddies. I think you would have to eat a lot of crow.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    the left definition of fascism is usually "whatever I disagree with" as opposed to a system where the State is in absolute control of everything, the dream of all good leftists(with them holding the strings). not in favor of gay marriage-fascist; problem with affirmative action-fascist; opposed to illegal immigration-ditto on down the line. shermbuck-come on, don't you think you're just a teensy bit better than everyone else because you hold the right views, be honest with yourself.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    not in favor of gay marriage-fascist
    In favor of indefensible oppression - conservative? Maybe you oughtta rethink that, Charley...

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Charley it isn't a matter of feeling better than others. Seeing old bigotry clothed in shiny new rhetoric makes me feel sad and angry, not satisfied or superior. And the boiled-down definition I recently proposed, re fascism, is not a subjective one. It covers Moussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain, for example, quite nicely. Dominant economic interests becoming the government. That is fascism. That is what we have. If you approve of that, then be honest and simply say so. If you think it's unfair to claim that in America, the dominant economic interests have become almost indistinguishable from the government, say so, although I must say I'd be surprised to find anyone of any political stripe defend that with real evidence. In any case, I humbly suggest that you stop hiding behind insults and take some responsibility for your thinking, that is if there is any real thinking beneath those Talking Points you're so good at rattling off.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    ShermBuck - I see that you still have your potty mouth and that you still cannot present a point without insulting personal remarks. That is both dumb and juvenile. Shall I assume you are both? My points were taken from the words of the author to show his inability to reconcile the world today as compared to the past, and his lack of logic in general. You write:
    It's just that his points are: 1) as if he was reading a completely different article and 2)completely rooted in a distinct anti-intellectualism
    Of course your comments refute nothing I wrote, which is not surprising given the general level of your comment. tristero writes:
    I knew the facts already
    Indeed. So why confuse yourself, eh? Glanton - We live in two different worlds. And before you tell me that I am incapable of seeing the other, remember that I am a sharecropper's son and have seen poverty up close and personal. I doubt you, or Dowd, have any real knowledge about the subject.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    PPJ-Aren't you missing something here? ppj presents his point to to ShermBuck starting with:
    and that you still cannot present a point without insulting personal remarks. That is both dumb and juvenile. Shall I assume you are both?
    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Squeaky - What you are evidently missing is ShermBuck's comment in which he referred to me as PPGoon and PPJerks. No free shots, Squeak. When you act juvenile and dumb, someone may point it out.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    ppj-Ha, ha, ha. Blind as a bat.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Violence, intolerance, aversion and suspicion toward new ideas, an incapacity for analysis, an inclination to act from feeling rather than from thought, an exaggerated individualism and a too narrow concept of social responsibiity, attachment to fictions and false values..., too great an attachment to racial values and a tendency to justify cruelty and injustice in the name of those values, sentimentality and a lack of realism... .
    The definitive description of the people who voted for Bush both times.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#18)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    leftists usually find such dark portents when they realize that most of the people in the country don't agree with them. they pawn that off as evil without giving a thought to the possibility that they are the ignorant, not those who disagree with them. it's part of the elitist mindset central to their worldview.
    Why do lefties think righties are elitists and righties think lefties are elitist?

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#19)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    I have some issues with this article. I am from the south and though you have your redneck goatf***ers, most of the people you meet are good, down to earth people. To generalize the south and say the whole country is becoming the south in a derrogatory (sp?) way is making a huge generalization about a group of people (racism without the race, perhaps regionism if you will). That being said, I have some input on the slavery thing that he talks about. When slaves were set free, there were two options, help them out or let them fend for themselves around the same croud that used to trade them. How much respect do you think they'd get in that environment? So, the government helped them and created a portion of society that is trained to live off of government help. That has not changed and probably never will. When it became that the government was helping all poor people (ie welfare) it broke the idea of creating a dependant race (blacks) only in theory. It's not as though black people have no opportunity now, but since the slave days, some have been traned to rely on government for help. That's why, I think, the poverty race mix stays mostly black. Not because of lack of opportunity or lack of will to work or anything else, but a trained culter stemming from one of the most racist, dividing deplorable institutions of global history (slavery). So the more a government gives, the more it engrains the culture of the poor, relying on help from a government. I'm sure to some this post will appear racist, and maybe it is, but it is a reflection of what I believe, from seeing it first-hand every day, has happened. To that extent, I do not really care if it appears racist, because there IS a never ending spiral of poverty for some and I think it stems from slavery and never really recovering from it. If people would have known that their labor for free would have that big of an impact, I wonder if they would have considered not doing it. Probably not. The almighty dollar right?

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#20)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    I have some issues with this article. I am from the south and though you have your redneck goatf***ers, most of the people you meet are good, down to earth people.
    In this portion I mean you have good people of all races. Most of the most down to earth, real people out there are not white. (as racist as that is)

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    because there IS a never ending spiral of poverty for some and I think it stems from slavery and never really recovering from it.
    Well you are correct but as far as I can tell, for the wrong reasons. Try thinking of it this way: Wealth in the U.S. is mostly inherited, not earned. Slavery built enormous wealth for the slaveholders that was passed down from generation to generation. The descendents of the slaves never saw any of it. In fact, slavery was NOT replaced by government programs to help the freed slaves, but by sharecropping and other exploitative arrangements that were not much better than slavery. The legacy of the plantation system still exists to this day, in the uneven distribution of wealth and resources to acquire wealth. The government programs did not begin until a hundred years after slavery ended, and have mostly been too little, too late. But the deeper question is...should the attainment of individual wealth be the overall goal in the first place, rather than the betterment of society as a whole?

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#22)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    But the deeper question is...should the attainment of individual wealth be the overall goal in the first place, rather than the betterment of society as a whole?
    You know, that is a good question, but I tend to think that if the system ran the way it was supposed to in the first place, if people would strive for individual wealth and self-improvement beyond monetary growth, then society would benefit as a whole. However, striving only for individual wealth leads to crime b/c if you have nothing, want to get everything, and dont care about bettering yourself as a person (ie low moral characteristics), then you dont care how you gain wealth. That's when individuals damage society with robery, murder for hire, etc for individual wealth. Therefore, it's my belief that the attainment of individual wealth and the betterment of society as a whole should be equal with no priority given to one over the other. In today's society though, people seem to forget about bettering society and that's a shame.

    Re: 'New South' or 'New U.S.'? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    wealth in the US is mostly inherited, not earned. what a brilliantly ahistorical statement. look at the innovators of history(Ford, Gates etc). did they inherit or create. if their wealth passes to family, who cares. what major corporations today were founded on or attained their greatness based on slavery? you'll have to look hard because they likely don't exist anymore.

    'New South' or 'New U.S.'? | 23 comments (23 topical)